Sort comments and draft replies

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds real context beyond them: no writes occur ('Drafts only: nothing is posted') and there is an AI-absent degraded mode that returns raw comments. It does not disclose cost/quota implications of the AI analysis or how large a batch it processes, which would be the remaining useful traits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is returned before the caveats. The long enumeration of outputs is dense but each item is a distinct, decision-relevant category, and the two trailing constraints (drafts only, no-AI fallback) are the highest-value caveats.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so thoroughly. Scope, safety, and degraded-mode behavior are all covered; only the recency window and the effect of max_comments are left implicit for a tool whose output shape depends on both.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 50% (channel and include_held documented; video_id and max_comments are not), so the description has to compensate. 'One video or the whole channel' does resolve the key ambiguity: video_id narrows scope and its absence means channel-wide triage. It adds nothing about max_comments or how 'recent' is bounded, leaving part of the gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Reads recent comments') and then enumerates the concrete deliverables: sentiment, themes, unanswered questions with draft replies, reply-worthy comments, spam/abuse to moderate, and video ideas. This clearly separates it from list_comments (raw list) and moderate_comments (takes action), which appear as siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit scope guidance ('one video or the whole channel') and a critical exclusion ('Drafts only: nothing is posted'), which routes an agent away from reply_to_comment. It also states a fallback behavior when no AI model is configured. It does not name sibling tools directly or say when to prefer list_comments instead, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.